Abramoff Cuts a Deal
Holy Crap. (If true.) We should have a pool about the ratio of dirty Dems to dirty Republicans that Abramoff will out. My guess is that, though he'll undoubtedly name all his Dems and probably won't name all his Republicans, it'll be about four to one.
That's the thing about the Democrats: they're never dirty enough to win, but never scrupulously honest enough to make the contrast with the Republicans undeniably stark. There'll be just enough dirty Dems to make it plausible for the spinners to make a two-house pox seem sensible.
Dems'll never win the PR war, but who knows how many Republican incumbents will go down over this?
(Note: I'm only half Democrat, and don't you forget it. Currently I'm really just an anti-Republican... [and will remain so until the GOP gets a non-criminal leadership])
Holy Crap. (If true.) We should have a pool about the ratio of dirty Dems to dirty Republicans that Abramoff will out. My guess is that, though he'll undoubtedly name all his Dems and probably won't name all his Republicans, it'll be about four to one.
That's the thing about the Democrats: they're never dirty enough to win, but never scrupulously honest enough to make the contrast with the Republicans undeniably stark. There'll be just enough dirty Dems to make it plausible for the spinners to make a two-house pox seem sensible.
Dems'll never win the PR war, but who knows how many Republican incumbents will go down over this?
(Note: I'm only half Democrat, and don't you forget it. Currently I'm really just an anti-Republican... [and will remain so until the GOP gets a non-criminal leadership])
posted by Winston Smith at
9:34 AM
3 Comments:
Click the link to Talking Points in the right margin of the main page for an interesting take on the boundary between appropriate legal action and legal action that alters the fundamental political balance. Assume for the moment that the balance is four to one Republican and the gross number of members is 60. If all are indicted and indicted incumbents lose to the most credible challenger from the opposing party, then control of the house flips. The e-mailer to Josh Marshall thinks that the DOJ should back off if it appears that its investigation could fundamentally change the political order. I don't see why that should be the case. The DOJ should go where the evidence leads. If political power trumps law enforcement then we are governed by men, and not by laws.
Amen, DLev.
Indict 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out.
Although I've made it abundantly clear that I think the GOP has gone mad and is running the country (and the world) into a ditch, I'd still want all the apparently guilty parties pursued, even if most turned out to be Dems.
This should be completely uncontroversial, a matter that transcends party affiliation.
The DOJ is chock-full of Republican political appointees.
Do you really believe that they won't do anything in their power (including breaking the law) to impede investigations, and insure that they save as many corrupt Republican asses as they can?
I don't. I think that this will come to naught, with some sacrificial lamb thrown to the wolves for appearance-keeping sake.
The system is corrupt beyond redemption.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home